Slower Traffic

Stirrings of Life

2006-06-24T11:43:00.000-04:00

What do you mean it's been nearly a year since my last post?

(Yet Another) Soldier Responds To Karl Rove

2005-06-26T14:17:00.000-04:00

It's been widely covered on the net already, of course, but this is one of those times when I must add my voice to the multitude.

I enlisted in the Army National Guard when I was a 19 year old college student. I chose MOS 11B, light weapons infantryman. I enlisted in a light infantry company, one that had been part of the second assault wave on "Bloody Omaha" Beach during World War II. In Alpha Company, we were all combat soldiers, and we trained to fight the old-fashioned way, with nothing more than what we could carry with us. In time, I earned a commission, and served on active duty as an officer.

I never served overseas, or fired a shot in anger, but I still hold my commission. Recently, I was told that I may soon be called up to active duty and sent to Iraq or Afghanistan.

If I'm called, I'll go. I'll go for the sake of the 19-year-old infantry soliders who are paying the price in blood for the folly of their civilian leadership in Washington. And I'll go because a soldier follows orders, even stupid, meaningless orders given by worthless cowards.

I'll go, if it comes to that, with these words in my mind:

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
    Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
    Rode the six hundred.

"Someone had blunder'd" is too generous. This war was started on the basis of lies, not blunders. I'll go, but I won't allow anyone to tell me that people who question the fools who currently run this country are somehow disloyal. Speaking the truth is always the right thing to do, even if, as General Eric Shinseki found, you get fired for telling the truth about Iraq.

I am proud to be a soldier and a Democrat. I'm proud that I supported a genuine war hero, John Kerry, in last year's election, and I wish for the sake of the country that he had won. I'm proud that I supported Al Gore, who served with honor in Vietnam, in the 2000 election, and I wish for the sake of the country that he had won.

Karl Rove, George Bush, Jr. and Dick Cheney all dodged the draft during Vietnam, though they were of age. They've repeatedly disgraced themselves by dishonoring the service of Americans like John Kerry, Al Gore and even John McCain.

I will never forgive the Republican party for its actions in last year's campaign. When delegates to the Republican convention wore band-aids with the logo of the Purple Heart on them, they mocked the service and the sacrifice of every soldier who has ever shed his or her blood in defense of this country.

Karl Rove and the rest of the Republican party's leadership have no business criticising anyone's patriotism. They've never actually displayed any themselves.

What Have They Done To My Army?

2005-06-03T20:18:00.000-04:00

After a couple of weeks of having the Two Minutes Hate dedicated to Newsweek, for its report that US troops had flushed the Koran down the toilet, it turns out the report wasn't so false, after all. The BBC reports that "US guards at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre kicked, threw water and splashed urine on copies of the Koran." As much as I wish it wasn't true, I never seriously doubted that this sort of thing had gone on. And while this report is more than bad enough -- a Koran, I'm told, is much more sacred to a Muslim than a copy of the Bible would be to even the most devout Christian -- there's worse to come. A federal judge has ordered the release, under the Freedom of Information Act, of four movies and "dozens of photographs" showing even worse scenes of abuse.

It's now nearly twenty years since I enlisted in the Army National Guard. Since then I've served on active duty and in the reserves, earned a commission, left the service and took up a civilian life. (There's talk now that I might be recalled, but that's for another day.) I was never all that much as a soldier -- I've never heard a shot fired in anger, thank God, and have never even been deployed in a potential combat situation. But I went throught the training, and came to respect my fellow soldiers and the institution of the Army. In particular, I remember how I was trained to deal with enemy prisoners. I was told, in no uncertain terms, that prisoners were not to be abused and that they had to be treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions.

There were several reasons, our trainers said, why we had to treat prisoners properly. To begin with, it was required by law and by Army regulations. In addition, treating prisoners well might encourage other enemy troops to surrender, once word got out that they wouldn't be tortured or summarily executed. Enemy units that captured Americans might also be encouraged to treat our troops well. But most of all, we were taught to protect our prisoners because it was the right thing to do.

I look in the news and I see that all of that is gone now. That culture has been destroyed, just like so many of the units in which I served are being worn out and ruined. The Army in which I served was ready for anything. Even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, we were confident that we could win against anyone on earth. And more than that, we believed that the dark days of Vietnam were behind us, that the crimes we'd read about at places like My Lai wouldn't be repeated. We were tough, well-equipped and well-led, and we knew that if we went into action, we'd make the nation proud of us.

So much for the Army I knew. Today's Army is being hollowed out by its civilian leadership in Washington, physically and morally. If I'm called back to active duty I'll go, but I can't stop wondering whether I'll recognize what I find.

Update (6/4/05): The spinning is underway, and now the story is this: "In one instance, a guard was said to have urinated near an air vent. The wind allegedly blew his urine through the vent, soiling one detainee and his Koran." Uh huh. And I was allegedly born yesterday.

"The Intelligence And Facts Were Being Fixed Around The Policy"

2005-05-15T20:31:00.000-04:00

This is all over the Internets, of course, but I find it so astonishing that I must post it here. For the record, I supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, because I thought that the Bush administration, for all its faults, wouldn't lie to the American people about the grounds for a war. This British memo (emphasis added) shows that I was far too much of an optimist.

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

Red Devils, Feeling Blue

2005-05-12T19:12:00.000-04:00

The sports-related precincts of the Internets are abuzz with word that an American, Malcolm Glazer, has bought up more than 50% of the shares of Manchester United plc, and that he seems poised to extend his control beyond the 75% figure needed to take the company off the stock exchange listings under English rules. Fans of the team have been protesting against Glazer’s approaches for months, and today they took to the streets outside the club’s Old Trafford stadium to burn him in effigy, along with some of their season ticket renewal forms.

In short, Man. United fans are now learning the lesson that drove me away from team sports years ago: no matter how much you love the club, it doesn’t love you back. Not ever, not even a little bit, not at all. Oh, it’ll say all of the right things now and then, but deep down all it wants is your money.

Here in the U.S., we’ve learned that lesson over the last few decades, but it’s still a bit of a novelty in the U.K. Long ago, the Baltimore Colts loaded up their gear in moving vans and snuck off to Indianapolis under cover of darkness, and Al Davis’s Raiders have wandered aimlessly between Oakland and Los Angeles. And in baseball, of course, I wasn’t even born when the Brooklyn Dodgers pulled up stakes and headed out west.

In England, this is all new. The Football League is more than 100 years old, but it was only in 2002 that a club was moved away from its fans. When Wimbledon F.C. was transplanted to Milton Keynes, it was a rude awakening for fans who had always assumed that their loyalty would be reciprocated.

The Wimbledon example shows up the biggest advantage of the English system over the American one, in my view: anyone can play. In the U.S., if you have a club that wants to play in any of the top sports leagues, you’ll need to buy a franchise at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars (assuming that the league is even willing to admit a new team, and assuming that other prospective teams don’t outbid you). But all the Wimbledon fans had to do was start up their own club, AFC Wimbledon, and enter it in one of the lower level leagues. Each year, teams at the top of their league move up into the next higher competition, while the lowest-placed teams drop down the ladder. Given time, luck and a lot of money, any team can make it all the way up into the Premier League.

Some Man. United fans are now trying to emulate AFC Wimbledon by starting their own club, FC United. I wish them luck, although I have a hard time believing that fans who’ve grown spoiled by United’s dominance of the Premiership over the last 10 years will really abandon the Red Devils for a team that will be playing against semi-professional and amateur teams for years, even assuming that everything goes well. Many more of them, I expect, will grumble and grouse, and still fill Old Trafford on a regular basis. And who knows, perhaps Glazer really will shaft the fans, just as they expect. But if they think that will be the exception, and not the rule, I’m afraid that they’ll be sadly disappointed.

So welcome to the modern age, you Reds. I don’t expect you to like it much, but then it’s not run to make you happy, it’s run to extract money from you. And if you’ll permit a suggestion from one of Glazer’s countrymen, perhaps you should reconsider your scorn for England's national team -- at least that one won’t be bought out from under you.

Rock On (And On, And On, . . .)

2005-05-10T18:35:00.000-04:00

So I see that the world's hardest-rocking senior citizens will be touring again this fall, and good on 'em. I'm not particularly interested in seeing the current edition of the Stones, but people I respect are, and I won't dispute their taste. No doubt I'm in a tiny minority of people who are less interested in the Rolling Stones playing Giants Stadium than in the fact that the finals of this year's CONCACAF Gold Cup will be played there. I'll be buying tickets for the semis and the final, and with a little luck I'll finally get to see the US National Team in person. Now if only the Nats and I can make it to Germany next year for the World Cup.

Memo to Self

2005-05-09T21:36:00.000-04:00

Self, it's completely unacceptable that you've lived in and around New York City for more than 10 years now, and have only in the last few days begun to listen regularly to WFUV. I realize that you've had a lot going on, and that it's not easy to get radio reception in the office where you spend so much of your time. Even so, you're simply going to have to bear down and do a better job.

That is all.

[And just to prove the point, I tune into their stream not 60 seconds after posting this, and hear a pretty nifty cover of REM's "Fall on Me", which was a nice follow-up to yesterday's Stevie Wonder covers (including, if I remember this correctly, a zydeco version of "Isn't She Lovely" and a vocal and string rendition of "Superstitious").]

A Kind of Reassurance

2005-05-09T15:34:00.000-04:00

One of the many reasons I don't post more frequently here is that others are much, much better at this sort of thing than I am. Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon (that's her over on the blogroll to the right) is one of them. I don't always agree with her view, but I've always enjoyed her writing even when the subject isn't of any particular interest to me. This post, however, exceeds my already high expectations. It's sharp, smart, funny and courageous. Marcotte is brutally frank and honest, which shows my admittedly trivial concerns over remaining pseudonymous into an even less flattering light. Happily, she posts more frequently than I do.

Benedictum XVI

2005-04-19T20:20:00.000-04:00

While I do identify as a Roman Catholic, I'm far from orthodox. In particular, I'm no sort of theologian, and I can't begin to evaluate the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI on those grounds. I will admit that I had been hoping for a pontiff from the Third World, just on symbolic grounds. But the College of Cardinals didn't ask for my advice, and I didn't offer it, and that's just as it should be, I think.

It was refreshing to see how little the process of the election had been bent to serve the all-devouring media. Where political elections around the world are packaged and stage-managed to the point of vapidity (and beyond) to feed the beast of TV, the selection of the Pope is almost wilfully old-fashioned. Of course there were no Sistine Chapel webcams, reporters phoning in remotes from within the Vatican, and all that folderol. In a rare nod to the world outside, chemicals were added to the burning ballots to more clearly indicate the result of the vote (white for a new Pope, black for another vote). But the process took a few minutes to work -- the smoke always looked white at first. Even when the new Pope had been elected, the news crews had to wait, unsure of who he was and when he'd be announced to the world.

Benedict XVI is 78 years old, and I fear that the Papacy may be too heavy a weight for an elderly man. The American Presidency is famous for consuming Presidents -- compare before-and-after pictures of any two-term President, and it will look like the man aged two or three decades over the space of eight years. Presidents, at least, get the chance to rest after their burdens; I would like to see some sort of system where Popes are given some sort of respite. John Paul II served until the very end of his strength, and I honor his memory for it, but I often thought that he'd have lived longer if he had been able to retire and rest a bit.

Reactions around the internets are interesting. I'm a great fan of Professor Berube's, and in particular his efforts to parody that which is beyond parody. But I must respectfully disagree with his post on Pope Benedict; I don't think that's the right tone at the moment. Still worse are those who label the Pope a Nazi -- he was enrolled, as a 14-year-old in the Hitler Jugend, but that does not make him a Nazi.

For my part, I'll wish the new Pope success, and ask that God grant him wisdom and strength enough to meet the serious responsibility of his position.

Life's Easier Questions

2005-04-12T22:15:00.000-04:00

Once again I’ve been even more scarce than I had intended to be, and find myself attempting to catch up. Dorothy Parker famously said that "wit has truth in it, wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." (Hey, it's national poetry month, so there's my reference for this post.) I’ve intended to aim for the "wisecracking" side of that remark -- not that I’m trying to be funny (if I was, I’m clearly failing), but in that the purpose of this blog is to get a little verbal exercise. And my muse, like the rest of me, is a bit out of shape at the moment.
It’s tough enough to find things to write about -- actually, it’s easy to find things to write about, but it’s difficult to find subjects that make it through all of the filters a blogger must apply in this day and age. Simply posting one’s thoughts is a recipe for disaster. A post must be safe to go up, and that means that (a) it won’t get the author fired; (b) it won’t get the author sued by some litigious trademark- or copyright-holder; and (c) it won’t get the author stalked by law enforcement and/or the lunatic fringes of society. I trust that the world will be able to endure without too much misery the losses it suffers through this sort of self-censorship, at least in my humble case. And for all that, I do find myself mentally composing posts often enough, only to lose them because I'm in the middle of something else and don't stop to write them down.
But in any event, I did see something reasonably noteworthy over the weekend: a full-on customized chopper of the sort that can be seen under construction on a surprisingly large number of television shows these days. I’ve watched a fair number of those shows myself, though I’d much rather be riding a bike than watching one built, and I’m about as far from the target market of those bikes as you can be while still riding a motorcycle. That said, the skills that go into these things are pretty impressive, and when you take them on their own terms, some of the final creations work pretty well. The problem I have is that their terms aren't mine -- I’d feel absurd riding one of those things, and probably I’d look that way too. I'd love to imagine making a bike of that sort that would suit me, but just how can you do "extreme understatement"?
(Lacking an answer to that question, I'll settle for a helmet that I could wear for more than an hour at a time without feeling like my ears have been in a vice.)

The First Squid of Spring

2005-03-31T20:19:00.001-05:00

I know I promised that updates would be infrequent around here, but even I hadn't expected them to be quite this infrequent. I'd apologize for that, but then I'm not under the delusion that anyone, anywhere cares even a jot about it, so I won't.

And besides, there's big news afoot, as tonight, on the streets of our fair city, I spotted the first squid of spring. He was riding a Yamaha R1 -- an absurdly powerful motorcycle, the sort where you're almost certainly breaking the law if you take it out of second gear. He was stopped in dense city traffic, but didn't hesitate to rev the engine now and then to make sure that everyone around him knew he was there. When an opening finally presented itself, he was off in true drag-racer style, with the throttle wide-open and the revs up around 10,000, producing the sort of high-pitched scream not usually heard outside of Formula 1 tracks (except of course, when a squid's around).

My bike's not nearly as fast as an R1, but it suits me perfectly, and I just may be able to get out for a long ride over the weekend. Ah, spring at last.

It's Out Of My Hands

2005-03-13T13:15:00.000-05:00

Life can be good at times; a brisk drive in a fast car down an open highway on a clear, crisp day is most certainly one of those times. Errands took me out to the upscale mall out west of town this morning and the trip in both directions was more than ample compensation for the time spent in consumerland.

The trip gave me a chance to test out the iPod connector that I recently had installed in my car. The interface isn't perfect, in a few relatively trivial ways, but it works well enough. I haven't set up any of the specially-named playlists that the car can recognize, so the 'pod just played back its tracks in alphabetical order, starting at the top, and this was more than pleasant enough. Best of all, after a few minutes it launched into Aimee Mann's Lost in Space, a terrific album that I haven't played in far too long. I also hadn't set up the metadata for that album correctly, so the first song I heard was "Backfire", one of the bonus tracks towards the end of the CD. That turned out to be another happy coincidence; it suited the moment perfectly.

But even aside from the music, the drive itself was a pleasure -- I've never been much of a car enthusiast, and the number of miles on my car draws laughs from the service department on those rare occasions when they see it. Today, however, was just that day to show me the appeal of the four-wheeled world, even though I know I'll never get more deeply into it. My heart's given to motorcycling, a more visceral, physical experience and a constant reminder of our connections with the phsyical world from which car designers try so hard to isolate us.

And that was the best part of the trip: walking from the store to the car, feeling the first touch of spring in the air and thinking that in just a week or so, at long, weary last, it'll be motorcycle weather.

Big* News

2005-03-08T20:06:00.000-05:00

Fast lane privileges have been granted to two new recipients, the worthy Steve Gilliard and the howling, unholy lunatics of the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill (the latter recently incognito, but worthy nonetheless). You will find them listed in the column at the right, which is a revolutionary new paradigm to leverage empowered communications outside of traditional channels. OK, it's just another blogroll. Happy now?

(* News in question is not necessarily big.)

Greetings

2005-03-06T14:34:00.000-05:00

Hello, world, and welcome to yet another blog. This one is named "Slower Traffic", and the name is a reference to the most fundamental law of our auto-centric civilization: get out of the fast lane unless you're passing someone.

Introduction and full disclosure time: First, you should not expect to find anything particularly worthwhile here. Expect updates to be infrequent and irregular, and the thoughts aired to be obvious. (You have been warned.)

Second, I won't be enabling commenting for a variety of reasons. Feel free to email me at the address in my profile. Do note that by email sending email to that address you irrevocably consent to having your comments published here. Flames and spam will be deleted; particularly stupid trolls will be mocked in public. (Again, you've been warned.)

Third, this blog is a non-commercial site that is not affiliated with any person or entity other than its author. (This does not really count as a warning.)

And with all that said, welcome.